Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Harper is arguing that he dropped the Cadman lawsuit on the basis that Stephen Dion is no longer the leader of the Liberal party. What nonsense, since the reason Harper gave for pursuing this lawsuit in the first place was that he wanted to protect his family's good name.

So how does protecting his family's good name turn on whether Stephane Dion is the Liberal leader or not?

Also this excuse doesn't jive with the fact that the Lawsuit was a lawsuit against the Liberal Party and not Stephen Dion per se. In fact at one point the lawsuit was against Stephane Dion, however at that point in time it was a lawsuit against Stephane Dion AND Michael Ignatieff.

Therefore the rational being advanced by Harper makes no sense and doesn't align with the facts.

Furthermore, the settlement of this lawsuit we were told all of 24 hours ago was on the basis that neither of the two parties (plaintiff and defendent) would comment on it. So why is Harper breaching that agreement with these comments in the press?

No Dion, no Cadman suit, Harper says

DANIEL LEBLANC

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

February 11, 2009 at 7:13 PM EST

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he dropped his libel lawsuit against the Liberals only because Stéphane Dion is no longer party leader, and not because he has anything to hide in the Chuck Cadman affair.

In a news release late last Friday, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party said the $3.5-million lawsuit had been dropped, without a trial or an apology, and that neither side would comment further.

The NDP alleged Wednesday that the surprise announcement is part of a cozy relationship between the Conservatives and the Liberals, which united on recent budget votes to keep Mr. Harper and the Conservatives in power.

“Does the Prime Minister now agree with the Liberal Party allegations on the Cadman affair, or is there something else that Canadians should know about why this case was dropped?” NDP Leader Jack Layton asked during Question Period.

Mr. Harper refused to address the issue directly, but he pointed out that Mr. Dion was replaced by Michael Ignatieff as Liberal Leader in December.

“I have already said all I have to say about this case. I would note that the leader of the Liberal Party is no longer in his position. Maybe the Leader of the NDP had something to do with that too,” Mr. Harper said, alluding to failed plans for a coalition government led by Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said that in his view, Mr. Harper dropped the lawsuit simply because he was not “in a position to win it.”

Mr. Harper sued Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party last March over statements that he knew of an alleged attempt to bribe Mr. Cadman, an independent MP dying of cancer, with a life-insurance policy in return for voting against the then-Liberal government in 2005.

Tom Zytaruk, whose biography of Mr. Cadman contained the bribery claim, said last week he hopes the Conservatives will withdraw allegations that he doctored a taped interview with Mr. Harper. The tape suggests Mr. Harper had knowledge of the alleged bribe.

“Do I expect an apology? No, but it would be nice to have one,” Mr. Zytaruk said.

Heritage Minister James Moore, who spearheaded the government's defence on the Cadman affair last year, rejected Mr. Zytaruk's call Wednesday.

“I don't have any comment on that. As you know, the matter has been settled,” Mr. Moore said.

Last year, Mr. Moore said the Liberal allegations were based on a tape that was “doctored” and “edited.”

According to a subsequent analysis by a sound expert hired by the Conservatives, the micro-cassette of the interview was not altered, except for an over-recording that started after any contentious statement.

2 comments:

I really don't know why the media have not cottoned on to the fact that whenever he opens his mouth Harper tends to stretch the truth. OMG, he has a degree on some completely different economic subject: but he must know what he's talking about on income trusts!

Remember during the election debates, when the cuts to arts came up, and Harper said he did all this analysis and consultations? Apparently, it's a all a cabinet secret now.

You know what I think? I think there were no consultations, or analysis, and that Harper just doesn't want to be caught out in lie, and that his arts policy was uncontaminated by any constructive scrutiny. I think this is true of nearly all his policies, since whenever they see the light of day, you'll find that those with intellectual authority seem to have some heavy reservations.

Oh, yeah. Linda Keen isn't a Liberal plant. Jack Layton isn't in league with the Taliban. A significant number of economists (especially those who have not terminated their education at a masters degree and who actually work as economists), think that carbon taxes are a good idea, and not a socialist plot to bankrupt the country. Global Climate change is a reality, and your plan to reduce Canada's emissions was found inside a fortune cookie. Preston Manning and your science advisory council is a bad joke. Longer sentences for teenagers do not reduce crime. The war on drugs is a failure and breeds gangs. Your big let's-go-to-war-with-Iraq speech, which you claimed you wrote, and sent to editorial boards across the country to publish was plagiarised. You lied when you said you were involved in preparing your speeches: involved enough to not even question where your speech writers get any of their ideas from? Your economic policy has been to scrutinize various voting blocs, then shower them with all (I mean all) of the surplusses Canadians painfully scrimped to achieve. Quebec MPs votes count just as much as any one else's, even if they don't agree with you politically, and it isn't a national crisis when they would rather vote against your party. You're the reason the deficit is so high. You just passed a budget which contradicted every economic policy you previously claimed to defend, and only did so to save your privileged job, which Canadians didn't directly elect you for. And you DID ADMIT TRYING TO BUY CADMAN'S VOTE: IT'S ON TAPE.

EVENTS

Income Trust Halloween VigilThanks to all who participated in both the Ottawa and Calgary vigils to mark the anniversary of the announcement.

WE"D LIKE SOME ANSWERS

As you well know, the ‘income trust thing’ has grown beyond the
question of whether fair taxes are paid on income from trusts. It’s
become a giant dirty snowball, and as it rolls forward it accumulates
more and more bulk. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's list a few and invite our "Accountable" government and our free press to provide some much-needed answers.

It is said “Trusts are inefficient use of capital. Why?” Two
related questions are ‘Whose money is it, anyway?’, and ‘Do Canadian
investors have a free and efficient market?’

How can information that is already in the public domain at SEDAR
make for a state secret? How could such information be used to harm
the Canadian national interest? And who would cause the harm?

Why won’t the Canadian media investigate the falsehoods and
misrepresentations told by the Minister of Finance to a committee of
Parliament? Was the Minister in contempt of Parliament?

Why won’t the Canadian media report (a) government tax revenues
gained from BCE in 2006 when BCE was a corporation to (b) government
tax revenues that would be gained in 2007 from BCE, if BCE had been
allowed to proceed to a trust, and (c) government tax revenues that
will be gained in 2007 from BCE, when BCE ownership has been carved
up as 45% foreign ownership and 55% large Canadian pension fund
ownership?